Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 22, 2017 | 讚壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 17

Our mishna said that one who doesn’t take truma and maaser聽gets lashes but did not mention one who doesn’t give the maaser聽designated for the poor.聽 Rav adds that case to the list and his opinion finds support in another tannitic聽source.聽 Other sins are listed regarding beit聽hamikdash聽type sins that one would get lashes.聽 Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that matches the mishna is brought in detail聽where he explains the derivation.聽 His derivation is questioned and then reinterpreted.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

拽讜专讗 讗转 讛砖诐 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专讬砖

He designates a portion of the produce by means of calling the name upon poor man鈥檚 tithe, but he is not required to physically separate that portion and give it to the poor.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讟讜讘诇讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘住驻讬拽讜 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讜讚讗讬

Rav Yosef suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce, and therefore, in a case where there is uncertainty whether poor man鈥檚 tithe was separated, one is required to separate it; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is not rendered untithed produce, and therefore, one need not even designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by calling its name upon a portion of the produce? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it is so, that this is the point in dispute, rather than disagreeing with regard to a case of uncertainty whether poor man鈥檚 tithe was separated, let them disagree with regard to a case of certainty that poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讟讜讘诇讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪驻专讬砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讟专讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪驻专讬砖

Rather, contrary to the previous suggestion, say that everyone agrees that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Amei ha鈥檃retz are not suspected of refraining from separating poor man鈥檚 tithe of demai. Since it is merely a matter of money, and no sanctity is involved, he separates poor man鈥檚 tithe, although he does not actually give it to the poor. And the Rabbis hold: Since the matter involves exertion for him, he does not even separate poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讟讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讞讟讛 讗讘诇 讘拽诪讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

搂 The mishna teaches: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Their dispute is with regard to one who eats one kernel of wheat of untithed produce. But with regard to flour, everyone agrees that one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Just as there is a dispute with regard to this case of a kernel of wheat, so too, there is a dispute with regard to that case of flour.

转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘讗讜讻诇 谞诪诇讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讞讟讛 讗讞转 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讞讟讛 讗讬谉 拽诪讞 诇讗

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He is flogged for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 response: For a kernel of wheat, yes, one is liable; for any amount of flour, no, one is not liable. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that one is liable for eating only an olive-bulk of wheat flour, in accordance with the statement that Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says.

诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诪讞 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讞讟讛 讗讞转 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘专讬讬转 谞砖诪讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讞讟讛 诇讗 讞砖讜讘讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that Rabbi Shimon spoke to them, and he meant as follows: According to my opinion, even if one ate any amount of flour he is also liable. But according to your opinion, concede to me at least that one is liable if he eats one kernel of wheat, as it is in the form of its creation. And the Rabbis say in response: There is a difference; an entity with a soul, i.e., a living creature, is significant, and one is liable for eating an entity of any volume. A kernel of wheat is not significant. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats any amount of food that is forbidden is liable to receive lashes; the Sages said the measure of an olive-bulk only with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering for one who unwittingly ate forbidden food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜讻诇 讘讻讜专讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 讛砖讜讘专 讗转 讛注爪诐 讘驻住讞 讛讟讛讜专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讘诇 讛诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讜讛砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3鈥10); and one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem; and also one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering; in all these cases he is flogged with forty lashes. But one who leaves the flesh of the ritually pure Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, and one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure Paschal offering, is not flogged with forty lashes.

讛谞讜讟诇 讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖诇讞 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛

With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, he is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住转讬诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讗讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses is liable to receive lashes. With regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, whose statements are often cited in the mishna unattributed. But the Rabbis say: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten; but the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them, and if one placed them and did not recite the accompanying Torah verses, the priest who eats them is not flogged.

讜诇讬诪讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住转讬诪转讗讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan say: This statement in the mishna is the unattributed statement of Rabbi Shimon, who stated this halakha explicitly, rather than attributing the statement to Rabbi Akiva, whose statement was not explicit. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that although he did not say so explicitly, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐

What is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to food items that may not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is written: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows that you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the donation of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). The Sages explain that with regard to the phrase 鈥渘or the donation of [terumat] your hand,鈥 these are first fruits.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇讜拽讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讘讻讜专讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach the prohibition to eat the first fruits outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the lenient case of second-tithe produce. If with regard to the lenient case of second-tithe produce, one who eats them outside the wall is flogged, then with regard to first fruits, all the more so is it not clear that he is flogged? Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a priest who partakes of first fruits before the person who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses over them, teaching that he is flogged.

讜谞讚讘转讬讱 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讘转讜讚讛 讜讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

The baraita continues: 鈥淣or your gift offerings鈥; this is a thanks-offering and a peace-offering that one donates voluntarily. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a thanks-offering and a peace-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce, for whose consumption outside the wall one is flogged, despite the fact that it is not an offering. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of a thanks-offering or of a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, before the consumption of its flesh is permitted, that he is flogged.

讜讘讻专转 讝讛 讛讘讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

The baraita continues: 鈥淥r the firstborn鈥; this is the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity, as even non-priests may partake of their flesh. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a non-priest who partakes of the flesh of a firstborn even after the sprinkling of its blood, that he is flogged.

讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜

The baraita continues: 鈥淥f your herd or of your flock鈥; this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which are offerings of the most sacred order, which may be eaten only within the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us?

讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘讻讜专 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering outside the wall, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering even after the sprinkling of its blood, which is the correct time to partake of it, but he partakes of it outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard, that he is flogged.

谞讚专讬讱 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜

The baraita continues: 鈥淵our vows鈥; this is the burnt-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order and is entirely consumed upon the altar, and is brought as a gift offering, not as an obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us?

讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘讻讜专 讗诐 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘

If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard there is an a fortiori inference from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Rather, the verse comes

讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a burnt-offering after the sprinkling, even inside the courtyard, that he is flogged.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇讬讚讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转讬诇讬讚 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 转讬诇讬讚 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

Rava says with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement in the baraita: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable that she does not bear him at all. Rava was so impressed by Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that he praised him and characterized him as the model of a wise man. Rava added: And I say this even though there is a refutation for each of his conclusions. What are the refutations?

诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讘讻讜专讬诐 诪诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讝专讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

What is the stringency of first fruits vis-脿-vis second-tithe produce? It is that first fruits are forbidden to non-priests, who are permitted to eat second-tithe produce. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second-tithe produce is more stringent than first fruits, in that it is forbidden to an acute mourner, i.e., one whose close relative died that day, which is not the case with regard to first fruits according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (see Yevamot 73b).

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻住祝 爪讜专讛

And what is the stringency of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering vis-脿-vis second-tithe produce? It is that the thanks-offering and the peace-offering require the placement of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second-tithe produce is more stringent than the thanks-offering and the peace-offering, in that the redemption of second-tithe produce requires money minted into a coin. A disqualified thanks-offering and peace-offering, like other disqualified offerings, may be redeemed with any object of equal value.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讘讻讜专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讗讚专讘讛 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讞诪讜专讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

And what is the stringency of a firstborn offering vis-脿-vis a thanks-offering and a peace-offering? It is that the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect from the womb, while the other offerings are consecrated by their owners. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a thanks-offering and a peace-offering are more stringent, in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering before its sacrifice, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh, which is not the case with regard to a firstborn offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 讘讻讜专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

And what is the stringency of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering vis-脿-vis a firstborn offering? It is that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are offerings of the most sacred order. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a firstborn offering is more strin-gent, in that its sanctity takes effect from the womb, not from consecration by its owner.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讜诇讛 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇 讗讚专讘讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讞诪讬专讬 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬

And what is the stringency of the burnt-offering vis-脿-vis a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? It is that it is burnt in its entirety upon the altar, and no part of it is given to the priests. That can be refuted; on the contrary, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are more stringent, in that they atone for one鈥檚 sins, and a burnt-offering is brought as a gift offering.

讜讻讜诇讛讜 讞诪讬专讬 诪注讜诇讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转

And all of those matters listed in the baraita are more stringent than the burnt-offering because there are two consumptions with regard to each of these matters, as they are consumed upon the altar and consumed by their owner and the priests, whereas the burnt-offering is consumed in its entirety upon the altar.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇讬讚讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪住专住 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讜讚专讬砖 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the meaning of this statement of praise: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable if she does not bear him at all? Ultimately, all of his derivations can be refuted. The Gemara answers: The praise is based on the fact that in order to arrive at what he himself holds, he transposes the verse and interprets it. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse from beginning to end; rather, he begins with the final case of first fruits, in order to arrive at the desired conclusion. Rava was impressed with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 interpretation.

讜讻讬 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon, who derived prohibitions not written in the Torah by means of a fortiori inferences: And does one derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference? But even according to the one who says that if there is a prohibition written explicitly in the Torah, one administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, one does not derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not derive prohibitions for which one is flogged from those inferences; rather, he derives a mere prohibition.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讞诪砖讛 讗讬住讜专讬谉 讛讜讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to a non-priest who ate the flesh of a burnt-offering before sprinkling its blood, outside the walls, according to Rabbi Shimon he is flogged with five sets of lashes: One because he is a non-priest; one for eating a burnt-offering; one for eating the flesh of an offering before its blood was sprinkled; one for eating offerings of the most sacred order outside the Temple courtyard; and one for eating sacrificial food outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that all these are actual prohibitions for which one is flogged. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that one is actually flogged; rather, it means that they are five prohibitions.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讜拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And these are the people who are flogged by Torah law? Among them is a priest who eats first fruits before the recitation of the accompanying Torah verses, and the Gemara established that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 17

拽讜专讗 讗转 讛砖诐 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专讬砖

He designates a portion of the produce by means of calling the name upon poor man鈥檚 tithe, but he is not required to physically separate that portion and give it to the poor.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讟讜讘诇讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讟讜讘诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘住驻讬拽讜 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讜讚讗讬

Rav Yosef suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce, and therefore, in a case where there is uncertainty whether poor man鈥檚 tithe was separated, one is required to separate it; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is not rendered untithed produce, and therefore, one need not even designate poor man鈥檚 tithe by calling its name upon a portion of the produce? Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it is so, that this is the point in dispute, rather than disagreeing with regard to a case of uncertainty whether poor man鈥檚 tithe was separated, let them disagree with regard to a case of certainty that poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜讚讗讬 讟讜讘诇讜 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 谞讞砖讚讜 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗 讗驻专讜砖讬 诪驻专讬砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讟专讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 诪驻专讬砖

Rather, contrary to the previous suggestion, say that everyone agrees that produce from which poor man鈥檚 tithe was certainly not separated is rendered untithed produce. And here, it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Amei ha鈥檃retz are not suspected of refraining from separating poor man鈥檚 tithe of demai. Since it is merely a matter of money, and no sanctity is involved, he separates poor man鈥檚 tithe, although he does not actually give it to the poor. And the Rabbis hold: Since the matter involves exertion for him, he does not even separate poor man鈥檚 tithe.

讻诪讛 讬讗讻诇 诪谉 讛讟讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讞讟讛 讗讘诇 讘拽诪讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讝讜

搂 The mishna teaches: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce and be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: Even if one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Their dispute is with regard to one who eats one kernel of wheat of untithed produce. But with regard to flour, everyone agrees that one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Just as there is a dispute with regard to this case of a kernel of wheat, so too, there is a dispute with regard to that case of flour.

转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讬 讘讗讜讻诇 谞诪诇讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讞讟讛 讗讞转 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讞讟讛 讗讬谉 拽诪讞 诇讗

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He is flogged for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation. The Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 response: For a kernel of wheat, yes, one is liable; for any amount of flour, no, one is not liable. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that one is liable for eating only an olive-bulk of wheat flour, in accordance with the statement that Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says.

诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诪讞 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讞讟讛 讗讞转 讻讘专讬讬转讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘专讬讬转 谞砖诪讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讞讟讛 诇讗 讞砖讜讘讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讻讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻讝讬转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 拽专讘谉

The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that Rabbi Shimon spoke to them, and he meant as follows: According to my opinion, even if one ate any amount of flour he is also liable. But according to your opinion, concede to me at least that one is liable if he eats one kernel of wheat, as it is in the form of its creation. And the Rabbis say in response: There is a difference; an entity with a soul, i.e., a living creature, is significant, and one is liable for eating an entity of any volume. A kernel of wheat is not significant. The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya, that Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats any amount of food that is forbidden is liable to receive lashes; the Sages said the measure of an olive-bulk only with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering for one who unwittingly ate forbidden food.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜讻诇 讘讻讜专讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛诐 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 讛砖讜讘专 讗转 讛注爪诐 讘驻住讞 讛讟讛讜专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讘诇 讛诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讜讛砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: In the case of a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited over those fruits the Torah verses that he is obligated to recite (see Deuteronomy 26:3鈥10); and one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard, or outside the Temple courtyard; and one who ate offerings of lesser sanctity or second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem; and also one who breaks the bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering; in all these cases he is flogged with forty lashes. But one who leaves the flesh of the ritually pure Paschal offering until the morning of the fifteenth of Nisan, and one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure Paschal offering, is not flogged with forty lashes.

讛谞讜讟诇 讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖诇讞 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛

With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, he is not liable to receive lashes for its violation.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住转讬诪转讗讛 讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻讜专讬诐 讛谞讞讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉 拽专讬讗讛 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘转 讘讛谉

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who eats first fruits before the one who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses is liable to receive lashes. With regard to this statement, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, whose statements are often cited in the mishna unattributed. But the Rabbis say: With regard to first fruits, the lack of placement alongside the altar invalidates them, and they may not be eaten; but the lack of recitation of the accompanying Torah verses does not invalidate them, and if one placed them and did not recite the accompanying Torah verses, the priest who eats them is not flogged.

讜诇讬诪讗 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住转讬诪转讗讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And let Rabbi Yo岣nan say: This statement in the mishna is the unattributed statement of Rabbi Shimon, who stated this halakha explicitly, rather than attributing the statement to Rabbi Akiva, whose statement was not explicit. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that although he did not say so explicitly, Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜转专讜诪转 讬讚讱 讗诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐

What is the statement of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to food items that may not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem. It is written: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows that you vow, nor your gift offerings, nor the donation of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17). The Sages explain that with regard to the phrase 鈥渘or the donation of [terumat] your hand,鈥 these are first fruits.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讜诪讛 诪注砖专 讛拽诇 讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇讜拽讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讘讻讜专讬诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讛诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

Rabbi Shimon said: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach the prohibition to eat the first fruits outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the lenient case of second-tithe produce. If with regard to the lenient case of second-tithe produce, one who eats them outside the wall is flogged, then with regard to first fruits, all the more so is it not clear that he is flogged? Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a priest who partakes of first fruits before the person who brought the fruits to the Temple recited the accompanying Torah verses over them, teaching that he is flogged.

讜谞讚讘转讬讱 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讘转讜讚讛 讜讘砖诇诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

The baraita continues: 鈥淣or your gift offerings鈥; this is a thanks-offering and a peace-offering that one donates voluntarily. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this phrase come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a thanks-offering and a peace-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce, for whose consumption outside the wall one is flogged, despite the fact that it is not an offering. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of a thanks-offering or of a peace-offering before the sprinkling of its blood on the altar, before the consumption of its flesh is permitted, that he is flogged.

讜讘讻专转 讝讛 讛讘讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

The baraita continues: 鈥淥r the firstborn鈥; this is the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us? If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity, as even non-priests may partake of their flesh. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to a non-priest who partakes of the flesh of a firstborn even after the sprinkling of its blood, that he is flogged.

讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜

The baraita continues: 鈥淥f your herd or of your flock鈥; this is a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which are offerings of the most sacred order, which may be eaten only within the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us?

讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘讻讜专 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering outside the wall, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. Rather, the verse comes to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering even after the sprinkling of its blood, which is the correct time to partake of it, but he partakes of it outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard, that he is flogged.

谞讚专讬讱 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讘讗 讝讛 诇诇诪讚谞讜

The baraita continues: 鈥淵our vows鈥; this is the burnt-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order and is entirely consumed upon the altar, and is brought as a gift offering, not as an obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: What does this verse come to teach us?

讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪注砖专 讗诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讘讻讜专 讗诐 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘

If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the wall of Jerusalem, there is no need for a verse, as it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of second-tithe produce. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering, which are offerings of lesser sanctity. If it is to teach that it is prohibited for a non-priest to eat a sin-offering and a guilt-offering after the sprinkling of its blood, it may be derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a firstborn animal. If it is to teach that it is prohibited to eat a burnt-offering outside the curtains surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard or outside the Temple courtyard there is an a fortiori inference from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Rather, the verse comes

讗诇讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛

to teach only with regard to one who partakes of the flesh of a burnt-offering after the sprinkling, even inside the courtyard, that he is flogged.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇讬讚讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 转讬诇讬讚 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 转讬诇讬讚 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

Rava says with regard to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement in the baraita: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable that she does not bear him at all. Rava was so impressed by Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement that he praised him and characterized him as the model of a wise man. Rava added: And I say this even though there is a refutation for each of his conclusions. What are the refutations?

诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讘讻讜专讬诐 诪诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讗住讜专讬诐 诇讝专讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讜谞谉

What is the stringency of first fruits vis-脿-vis second-tithe produce? It is that first fruits are forbidden to non-priests, who are permitted to eat second-tithe produce. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second-tithe produce is more stringent than first fruits, in that it is forbidden to an acute mourner, i.e., one whose close relative died that day, which is not the case with regard to first fruits according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (see Yevamot 73b).

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪诪注砖专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻住祝 爪讜专讛

And what is the stringency of a thanks-offering and a peace-offering vis-脿-vis second-tithe produce? It is that the thanks-offering and the peace-offering require the placement of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar. That can be refuted; on the contrary, second-tithe produce is more stringent than the thanks-offering and the peace-offering, in that the redemption of second-tithe produce requires money minted into a coin. A disqualified thanks-offering and peace-offering, like other disqualified offerings, may be redeemed with any object of equal value.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讘讻讜专 诪转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讗讚专讘讛 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讞诪讜专讬诐 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬诐 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

And what is the stringency of a firstborn offering vis-脿-vis a thanks-offering and a peace-offering? It is that the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect from the womb, while the other offerings are consecrated by their owners. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a thanks-offering and a peace-offering are more stringent, in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering before its sacrifice, and libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh, which is not the case with regard to a firstborn offering.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讘讻讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 讘讻讜专 讞诪讜专 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐

And what is the stringency of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering vis-脿-vis a firstborn offering? It is that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are offerings of the most sacred order. That can be refuted; on the contrary, a firstborn offering is more strin-gent, in that its sanctity takes effect from the womb, not from consecration by its owner.

讜诪讗讬 讞讜诪专讗 讚注讜诇讛 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇 讗讚专讘讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讞诪讬专讬 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬

And what is the stringency of the burnt-offering vis-脿-vis a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? It is that it is burnt in its entirety upon the altar, and no part of it is given to the priests. That can be refuted; on the contrary, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are more stringent, in that they atone for one鈥檚 sins, and a burnt-offering is brought as a gift offering.

讜讻讜诇讛讜 讞诪讬专讬 诪注讜诇讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转

And all of those matters listed in the baraita are more stringent than the burnt-offering because there are two consumptions with regard to each of these matters, as they are consumed upon the altar and consumed by their owner and the priests, whereas the burnt-offering is consumed in its entirety upon the altar.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讬诇讬讚讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇诪讗讬 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪住专住 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讜讚专讬砖 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the meaning of this statement of praise: With regard to anyone whose mother is bearing a child who is like Rabbi Shimon, she should bear that child, and if not, it is preferable if she does not bear him at all? Ultimately, all of his derivations can be refuted. The Gemara answers: The praise is based on the fact that in order to arrive at what he himself holds, he transposes the verse and interprets it. Rabbi Shimon does not interpret the verse from beginning to end; rather, he begins with the final case of first fruits, in order to arrive at the desired conclusion. Rava was impressed with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 interpretation.

讜讻讬 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon, who derived prohibitions not written in the Torah by means of a fortiori inferences: And does one derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference? But even according to the one who says that if there is a prohibition written explicitly in the Torah, one administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, one does not derive a prohibition from an a fortiori inference. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon does not derive prohibitions for which one is flogged from those inferences; rather, he derives a mere prohibition.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专 砖讗讻诇 诪谉 讛注讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 讞诪砖讛 讗讬住讜专讬谉 讛讜讜

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: With regard to a non-priest who ate the flesh of a burnt-offering before sprinkling its blood, outside the walls, according to Rabbi Shimon he is flogged with five sets of lashes: One because he is a non-priest; one for eating a burnt-offering; one for eating the flesh of an offering before its blood was sprinkled; one for eating offerings of the most sacred order outside the Temple courtyard; and one for eating sacrificial food outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that all these are actual prohibitions for which one is flogged. The Gemara answers: It does not mean that one is actually flogged; rather, it means that they are five prohibitions.

讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讜拽讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: And these are the people who are flogged by Torah law? Among them is a priest who eats first fruits before the recitation of the accompanying Torah verses, and the Gemara established that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

Scroll To Top